What exactly is the assessment of the U.S.A. in respect of India’s aspirations and role in South Asia? The New York Times last February had revealed a secret US. Administration report which characterized India as a power with “hegemonic” aspirations in South Asia. The document consequently emphasized the need for a corresponding U.S. response to contain Delhi’s ambitions. A new document signed by Defence Secretary Dick Cheney implies abandonment of the earlier stand. It says Pentagons regional defence strategy will opt for “performance” to a collective response (by “democracies” and like-minded nations) to preclude threats or if necessary to deal with them.
Appropriate allowance has to be made to countries to talk in a variety of languages without compromising their legitimate long-term national interests. Moreover there is always a scope for duality of thinking when it comes to “matters of state” and “matters of administration.” These fine points however need not distract us from analyzing the more immediate concerns of the U.S. administration vis-a-vis India. Those who have an intimate knowledge of the Brahman psyche will testify that India has not stopped dreaming of a vast empire in South Asia merely because the navies of India and the U.S.A. are currently holding joint exercises in the Arabian Sea.
India’s Hindi and Sanskrit literature is replete with references to the impact of Brahman civilization on far off lands in Asia in the hoary past. India’s ruling class clings to the acquisitions of territories by the British Empire and has dreams of recapturing other territories. No wonder India lost any time in the wake of the Independence in 1947 in capturing Kashmir and compelling rajas and maharajas of princely states to announce the merger of their territories with India Hindu intelligentsia still revere Sardar Patel here for his expansionist plans. Jawaharlal Nehru carried these plans ahead by attacking Goa and merging that territory into India Indira Gandhi played her own role in respect of Sikkim by making it another state of India.
Indias role vis-a-vis its neighbors in the recent past speaks volumes of Delhis arrogant ambitions. It armed and trained Tamil militants to first destabilize the tiny Sn Lankan state and then sent its army to that island to crush the demand for a separate Tamil speaking state of Eelam when it started threatening India’s own integrity. Delhi’s hostility towards Pakistan has a long history. India has yet to reconcile itself to the creation of Pakistan as a separate country. Delhi tried to mend its relations with China by sending its President to that country and reportedly came to an understanding on reduction of troops on the joint border. This maneuver helped India to dramatically announce calling off of its dialogue with Pakistan. It could well be a safe bet to suggest that India’s growing hostility towards Pakistan may land the U.S.A. in a situation which it may not have bargained for in joining joint naval exercises India’s relations with other neighbors are far from cordial notwithstanding the occasional meetings under the banner of SAARC and other for a.
India’s expansionist ambitions ill fit with the regional aspirations of Kashmiri Sikh Assam or Tamil nations. That is precisely why there is a sense of alienation in Kashmir Punjab Assam and Tamil Nadu. A country with imperial plans cannot afford to let small nations already with in its fold have a degree of autonomy much less independence. This imperial psyche is the breeding ground for indigenous militancy in the first place.
The U.S administrations volte face on India as such could only be viewed as a political gimmick borne out of the Bush administrations anxiety to play the India card in the context of the grave economic problems at home and to holster the country’s image abroad India does not cease to hold hegemonic ambitions merely because of the U.S. administrations own compulsions and limitations This Country will have to pay dearly for its folly of giving India the Clean slate it does not deserve.
Article extracted from this publication >> June 5, 1992
